| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use |
| Date: | 2017-12-29 17:33:24 |
| Message-ID: | 25128.1514568804@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I have looked at 0002 and 0003. Those look good to ship for me.
> Yeah, I'd vote to push those right away to see what buildfarm has to
> say. That way you can push 0001 shortly after the dust settles (if
> any), which will have an effect on the bootstrap data format patch.
Yeah, I think all of this is at the point where the next thing to do
is see what the buildfarm has to say. I could test it manually on
prairiedog, but I'd just as soon let the buildfarm script do the work.
It does make sense, probably, to push 0001-0003 first and see if
anything turns up from that, then 0004.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-29 17:38:09 | Re: Converting plpgsql to use DTYPE_REC for named composite types |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-12-29 17:26:25 | Re: Converting plpgsql to use DTYPE_REC for named composite types |